Punishment for cyber terrorism
Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with punishment for cyber terrorism. Whoever,-- (A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by-- (i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorised to access computer resource; The Act came into force on 17 Oct 2000.
(1) Whoever,--
(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by--
(i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorised to access computer resource; or
(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access; or
(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant,
and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70; or
(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer data base that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer data base, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer data base so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise,
commits the offence of cyber terrorism.
(2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life
Section 66F, The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sumit Kumar Singh v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-2.pdf 2022-06-17 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.A 865/2021 (NIA Special Court discharge). K. Vinod Chandran / C. Jayachandran DB. Isolates IT Act 66F(1)(B) cyber-terrorism ingredients: (i) knowing/intentional unauthorised access to a computer resource; (ii) obtaining restricted data kept for security of the State; (iii) reasons to believe the data may be used to injure sovereignty/security. Theft of SSDs/RAMs from Multi-Function Consoles on an Indigenous Aircraft Carrier under construction, after induction briefing and biometric access, prima facie supplies those ingredients; erasure of data before OLX sale does not negate ‘reason to believe’. Discharge refused. Map it-act 66F cited only. Do not pad ipc 380 (already filled) or 454/461.
On this section: IT 66F(1)(B) cyber terrorism is prima facie made out by unauthorised access to restricted warship-console data with reason to believe it may injure the security of the State (Sumit Kumar Singh).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 66F
What have the courts held on Section 66F of the Information Technology Act?
Sumit Kumar Singh v. Union of India (17 Jun 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IT 66F(1)(B) cyber terrorism is prima facie made out by unauthorised access to restricted warship-console data with reason to believe it may injure the security of the State (Sumit Kumar Singh).
How do I find court cases under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IT Act 66F, section 66F IT Act, section 66F of the Information Technology Act. People searching for it also type it act 66f punishment and it act 2000 66f. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Sumit Kumar Singh v. Union of India (17 Jun 2022).
What should I read with Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 70 (Protected system), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 66F of the Information Technology Act come into force?
Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, cited as IT Act 66F, came into force on 17 Oct 2000, having been enacted on 09 Jun 2000. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1304 words
- 87. Power of Central Government to make rules877 words
- 43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc506 words
- 46. Power to adjudicate370 words
- 89. Power of Controller to make regulations345 words
- 70B. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team to serve as national agency for incident response326 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.